Delhi Court January 2005 Judgments

Cce Vs. Barnala Steel Industries Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The above captioned two appeals have been directed against the common order in appeal. The Appeal No. E/4808/04-B has been filed by the assessee for setting aside the penalty of Rs. 1.5 lakhs confirmed against them by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereas appeal No. 4548/04 has been filed by the ' Revenue for enhancement of the penalty.2. The facts are not much in dispute. The assesses were engaged in the manufacture of MS bars during the period in dispute and were working under the compounded levy scheme w.e.f. 1.9.1997 vide their declarations dated 6.8.1997 and 24.5.1998. They failed to discharge their duty under Section 3A on the basis of their ACP determined by the competent authority. They were served with three show cause notices vide which they were called upon to deposit the total outstanding duty with interest for the period March, 1998 to March, 1999, August 1999 to December 1999 and January 2000 to March, 2000. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand with interest a...

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs. Banswara Textile Mills Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(183)ELT318TriDel

1. In this appeal, filed by the Revenue, the issue relates to the durability on waste and scrap of capital goods removed by M/s. Banswara Textile Mills Ltd. 2. We heard Shri Vikas Kumar, learned SDR for Revenue and Shri K.K.Anand, learned Advocate for the respondents. The Deputy Commissioner, under Order-in-Original No. 52/2004 dated 23-2-2004, confirmed the demand of duty and imposed an equivalent amount of penalty on the waste and scrap of the capital goods on the ground that the respondents had failed to prove that the scrap was generated from the machines which were procured prior to 1990. The Commissioner (Appeals), however, set aside the Order-in-Original on the ground that there is nothing on record to show that the scrap was generated out of the machines in respect of which Modvat credit of duty has been availed of by the respondents. The learned SDR has referred to Rule 57S(2)(c) which provides for payment of duty on waste and scrap of the capital goods in respect of which Mo...

Hotel Mela Plaza Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(100)ECC95

2. The appellants filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned Order held that 10% of the bill amount charged as service charges are liable for service tax. The Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the demand of Rs. 1,18,630 and penalty of Rs. 2,37,260 was imposed on the appellants.3. The contention of the appellants is that the amount @ of 10% collected from their customers is subsequently disbursed among the staff. Therefore, it is not part of their income. The appellants submitted that as per the provisions of Finance Act 1994, Section 67 (L) provides that "service provided by Mandap keeper to a client shall be the gross amount charged by such keeper from the client". As this 10% is disbursed among the staff, therefore, it cannot be included in the gross amount charged by the appellants from their clients. It is contended that no allegation of suppression can be raised against the appell...

Kunal Travels Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(183)ELT299TriDel

1. Heard both sides. The appellant filed this appeal against the adjudication order passed by the Commissioner of Customs. In the impugned order, penalty of Rs. one lakh was imposed under Section 114 of Customs Act on the appellant.2. M/s. Zenith International are engaged in the export of handicraft and are wares of brass and filed Shipping Bills dated 4-12-2001 with ICD Moradabad along with invoice and packing list through their CHA (present appellant) for the export of goods. The goods for export were examined and after examination, the goods were stuffed in the container which were sealed with the Customs Seal. On re-examination of the goods it was found that goods were not as per the declaration made in the shipping bills. A SCN was issued to the appellant for imposition of penalty on the ground that the appellant was guilty for abetment on his part in misdeclaring the goods in the shipping bills. The adjudicating authority imposed the penalty.3. The contention of the appellant is...

Lml Ltd. Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)(100)ECC339

1. Heard both sides. The appellants filed this appeal against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Kanpur. In this case, the demand was confirmed in respect of Voltage Regulars and Blinkers manufactured in Industrial Electronic Division and the same were cleared to their Scooter Division. The contention of the Revenue is that prior to March 1986, the appellants were clearing the goods at a higher price whereas after March 1986, the prices were reduced drastically. The Revenue wants to assess these Voltage Regulars and Blinkers at the price prevalent prior to March 1986. The contention of the appellants is that they were manufacturing these items in Industrial Electronic Division and were clearing to their own Scooter Division. The contention of the appellants is that prior to March 1986, these items were manufactured out of the imported parts by paying higher customs duty and after March 1986, they started manufacturing these items out of the loc...

Jcit, Spl. Range 5 Vs. Sidheswari Paper Udyog Ltd.

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (2005)94ITD187(Delhi)

1. The following question has been referred to me Under Section 255(4) of the Income-tax Act: "Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the interest received by the assessee from the buyers on delayed payment and the transport subsidy received from the Government under Restructuring Transport Subsidy Scheme was the income derived from industrial undertaking so as to be eligible for deduction Under Section 80-IA of the Act.?" 2. I have heard the rival submission and considered the facts brought out clearly in the order of the Ld. Members, who differed. So far as the interest received by the assessee on delayed payment is concerned, I hold that this arises directly out of the industrial undertaking and has, therefore, to be held eligible for the deduction Under Section 80-IA. I rely on the following authorities in support of my decision. 5. Order of the Third Member, Pune in the case of Kirloskar Electro Dyeing Ltd. v. DCIT 87 ITD 264 (TM).3. So far as the transpor...

Tata Sons Limited and anr. Vs. Fashion Id Limited

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 117(2005)DLT748; (2005)140PLR12; 2005(30)PTC182(Del)

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.1. Plaintiffs pray:''(a) An order restraining the Defendant, its partners or proprietors as the case may be, their officers, servants, agents and representatives and all others acting for an on their behalf from using the domain name 'tatainfotecheducation.com' or operatin any business, making, selling/transferring, offering for sale, advertising and in any other manner dealing with goods or services using the Plaintiffs' trademarks TATA/TATA INFOTECH/TATA INFOTECH EDUCATION or many other mark/name which is identical with or deceptively similar to the Plaintiffs' trademarks TATA/TATA INFOTECH, whether as a domain name or otherwise and from doing any other thing as is likely to lad to passing off of the business and goods of the Defendant as and for those of the Plaintifs;(b) An order for freezing the website being operated under the domain name 'tatainfotecheducation.com' and for the transfer of the impugned domain name to the Plaintiffs from the register of the Re...

Hegedus Lahel Csaba Vs. Union of India (Uoi)

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2005CriLJ2486; 2005(79)DRJ574

R.C. Jain, J.1. This is an application under Section 389 read with Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for temporary suspension of the sentence of the appellant for a period of three months on the ground that he wants to marry a certain Ms. Elisabeth Gulbrandsen.2. The appellant stands convicted for the offence under Section 20(B)(ii) and Section 23 read with Section 28 of the NDPS Act (in short the Act) and has been sentenced to undergo RI for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1.00 lac and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for six months. An appeal filed by the appellant against his conviction and sentence is pending disposal. The application has been made with the averments that at the time of his arrest the appellant was to marry his fianc Ms. Elisabeth Gulbrandsen but due to his arrest, the marriage ceremony could not take place. The appellant has an old father aged about 80 years and wants the appellant to marry in his lifetime. The fiancof the appellant has waited for ...

Mahendra Pal Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors. and School and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 117(2005)DLT204; 2005(80)DRJ62

Manmohan Sarin, J.1. Petitioner, a retired Addl. District and Sessions, Delhi by this petition seeks a writ of certiorari, quashing orders dated 13.5.2000 and 24.7.2000, rejecting his claim for medical reimbursement. Petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus directing respondents to sanction and release his medical claim of Rs. 2,00,239/- (Rupees Two lacs two thirty nine only). Petitioner's claim for reimbursement of medical expenses relates to the angioplasty with a spent being fixed at the Escorts Heart Institute and Research Centre (hereinafter referred to as the EHIRC) during 19th to 23rd October, 1999.2. Petitioner had been compulsorily retired by Delhi High Court on 1.6.1993. Petitioner challenged the said order by way of a writ petition bearing No. 4354/93. The Division Bench allowed the writ petition on 18.2.2000. As a result of the writ petition being allowed, it was held that the petitioner continued in service with all consequential benefits till the date of his superannuation i.e...

Usha Drager Private Ltd. Vs. Draegerwerk Aktiengesellschaft

Court: Delhi

Reported in: [2006]132CompCas198(Delhi); 2005(1)CTLJ211(Del)

Mukul Mudgal, J.1. The application ( is 3171/04) for interim relief arises from a suit for permanent injunction and rendition of accounts and is based upon clause 6 of the Joint Venture Agreement (hereinafter referred to as the JVA or Agreement) dated 9th May 1987 said to be in the nature of a non compete clause between the parties.2. The case of the plaintiff is as under:-(a) One Usha Services and Consultants Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as `Usha') and RKKR Infotech (P) Ltd., plaintiff No. 2 entered into a 50:50 joint venture with Draegerwerk Aktiengesellschaft (hereinafter referred to as `Draeger'), defendant No. 1 to form a Joint Venture Company by the name of Usha Drager Pvt. Ltd., plaintiff No. 1, as per clause 4 of the Agreement. Article 2 of the Articles of Association of the plaintiff No. 1 defines Drager and USHA as under:'Article 2 of the Articles of Association of the plaintiff No. 1 Company defines Drager and reads as under:'Drager means DraegerwerkAktiengeselisschaft a C...